Law enforcement considering another push for red-light cameras

Beyond the Sun

The North Las Vegas Police Department is considering again lobbying the state legislature to conduct a study on red-light cameras following the release Tuesday of the first definitive study on the use of the controversial cameras.

The national study, released Tuesday by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, looked at 99 cities with populations of more than 200,000, comparing those with red-light cameras to those without.

Researchers determined that the cameras have saved hundreds of lives. Traffic fatalities in 14 cities with red-light cameras fell by 35 percent between the five-year periods 1992 to 1996 and 2004 to 2008, according to the survey. Although the rate also dropped in the 48 cities without the cameras during that same time period, it only declined by 14 percent.

The study also said that had cameras been operating during the 2004 to 2008 time period in all large cities, a total of 815 deaths would have been prevented.

Those critical of the cameras cite concerns over privacy and of the revenue streams tied to them. But police departments nationwide have cited positive changes in driver behavior — slowing down and not racing through yellow lights — in coming out in favor of the cameras.

“This is truly empirical data,” North Las Vegas spokesman Sgt. Tim Bedwell said. “We as police officers know the carnage caused by these left turns (on red) and T-bones...We see it every day and know how dangerous it is.”

Red-light cameras have been a contentious issue for North Las Vegas Police. Alarmed by the number of accidents caused by cars running red lights, the department has lobbied state lawmakers to place red-light cameras at a handful of city intersections as part of a pilot program.

Both the Metro and Henderson police departments supported the legislation, Bedwell said, but because it was a study, the smallest of the three cities — North Las Vegas — was chosen to carry the project through.

The cameras would allow the city to collect data that officials hope would convince lawmakers to allow police to use cameras to issue traffic citations. A state law passed in 1999 prohibits traffic cameras for tickets.

To commission a study, North Las Vegas has asked lawmakers to make an exception to the law each legislative session since 2005. Each time, it failed.

“These kind of studies dispute the sort of arguments against red-light cameras,” Bedwell said. “If we can bring in a study that shows similar results, we can get support from (state) legislators (to change the law).”

In Nevada, red light violations are criminal misdemeanors, necessitating proof beyond reasonable doubt. In neighboring states, such as Arizona, which has implemented red-light cameras, the violations are considered petty crimes, requiring only probable cause.

Because running a red light is a misdemeanor in Nevada, opponents argue red-light cameras infringe upon due process. There is a presumption of guilt, said Chad Dornsife, executive director of Best Highway Safety Practices Institute, and there is no chance to confront your accuser when it is a camera.

“You can’t deny someone due process,” he said. “We feel (the cameras) are illegal and unconstitutional.”

The nonprofit group has lobbied against red-light cameras in Nevada since the issue first came to light in the 1990s, raising privacy concerns and questions about the revenue stream from red-light camera tickets.

“These cameras turn Nevada into a police state,” Dornsife said. “It’s a fraud at best and criminal at worst.”

“It’s really frustrating for us when we hear people arguing about privacy when there are already a lot of cameras in Las Vegas,” Bedwell said. “We want something that’s revenue neutral, or the public is not going to buy (the camera program) and shut it down.”

The Department of Transportation already is scheduled to introduce a bill in committee to repeal the state law banning the use of cameras for issuing traffic citations. Dornsife said he plans to fight it.

“It’s bad PR for a tourist state,” he said. “It’s short-sighted and ill-advised.”

Join the Discussion:

Previous Discussion: 24 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

It's long established that one has "no expectation of privacy" in public areas, so I see no problem with "red-light" cameras. Something must be done to control the crazies we have misusing the driving priviledge and endangering us all. The reckless conduct is so pervasive that I routinely see drivers of vehicles with out-of-state-plates driving like maniacs because they believe there is no limits on how fast they can go, if they tailgate or weave in and out of traffic. It's got to be stopped!

I don't run on red, so I won't get a fine. In other cities, cameras have reduced death and injury, so their insurance rates aren't nearly as high as Vegas. At least cameras don't require sick leave, vacation days, PERS, OT, etc. My feeling is, put them up and use the $$$ to help fund Metro. No one has the right to purposely violate the law and kill me.

Due process? Give me a break. The camera is the best witness. The violator won't be able to argue what was seen or attack the officer. If they can show the camera was distracted and only observed part of the violation, so be it. No privacy concerns when you are in the public eye. We need cameras everywhere.

I believe the main purpose behind this camera issue is MONEY. The cameras not going stop some drunk from running a red light and killing someone. What's the next step after red light cameras? You know their going to come up with some other reason to put up more cameras. Where will it stop? I say no to red light cameras. There's a super small chance of me being a victim of their being no red light camera. I'll take my chances without them.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neitherBenjamin Franklin

What is really being said with that statement is there is no real chance to lie about the fact you ran the red light. There is "proof beyond reasonable doubt" when it is a photo.

I live on a corner that has stop signs. I watch 30+ people each day drive though the stop sign. Not even slow down. A couple times a year there are accidents at this corner with some of them ending up in my block wall.

I now have security camera's on my home and some of them show the stop sign and corner. Insurance companies no longer argue about "who" is going to pay for my block wall the last two times. ;-)

On second thought though how does the state expect to photograpic plates that have no raised numbers-letters? or those folks who place glossy clear laminate over their plates, or place thier plates so they can't be photograped?

Why not put up the cameras and not issue citations? Just use them for evidence in cases where an actual accident happens? Why does everything the police do have to include increasing their revenue so they can continue to increase their budget until we are truly a police state, which we are already on the way to being?

You know everyone that posted did not get why the study was done. People the insurance companies did the study. If you get tickets then your insurance gets more money. It is a double edge sword. The city or counties will also benefit. For all of you that don't remember that is how the seat belt law started. I know you will say they work. Yes real seat belts work but you have a passive seat belt. The next time you are in a crash the trooper or officer will ask you on form 5 were you wearing your seat belt. It had nothing to do with the crash but was for the insurance company only. How many times does the news media say the people died or recieved critical injuries AND was also wearing there seatbelts, they only report when they don't wear there seat belts. Funny they have been program that seat belts are great. Same will happen with camera's. Next time you see metro ask him if he is traffic or patrol. He will answer patrol, very few traffic metro. N. Las Vegas do everything but the camera is not needed. Something of thought from a person that put a lot of time on the streets.

People are dying in this town because of morons blowing lights- it used to be you would see it once in a while-now its at every signalized intersection every day- the argument for not doing it was that people would run into the people who have appropriately stopped, whats that tell you-

As long as cops claim invasion of privacy when the topic of dash-cams come up, they have no business asking for cameras pointed at citizens. Until all patrol cars have dash cams and Metro can track their officers to make sure their not joyriding in Arizona, they can leave us alone.

It's hard to trust N LV when it has such a long history of traffic entrapment, and police abuse setting up people, changing signs and speed limits, creating slow zones such as the one near the dump where there is one speed at the top of the hill and the speed changes in the middle of the hill. Just past that sign is often 10-20 cops are sitting there lined up to right tickets and just past them the speed returns to normal.

It's a scam and dishonest and encourages people to mistrust the police. The cameras do more than monitor red lights and they are left on all the time. I've known officers to admit that people watch them to just spy on people fro entertainment in many cities, that officers and staff use them to spy on neighbors they don't like or spouses they think are cheating.

It removes the right to travel and conduct business without being monitors, there may be not presumption of privacy in the public space but their is also not supposed to be a presumption of being spied on, monitors, and tracked either and thats just what happens the more of these and other cameras go up.

Yet crime does not go down, and some studies have shown that accidents have not while other studies claim they do. SOme studies claim the reductions in accidents is temporary and some studies have shown that just placing dummy cameras up slows traffic too.

There just is not a enough clear information and no tools in place to ensure abuse does not happen.

Unfortunately, the red light cameras, as well as a lot of traffic enforcement has becoume merely a source of "revenue enhancement" (money!). In Bakersfield, a red light ticket is between $400-500. They gave out about 7500 tickets last year. (no, I've never had one). I do know that the bulk of that money goes to the company that installed the cameras. I'm for enforcement of the laws, but in this day where a "10 over the limit" (50 in a 40) costs you $300 (plus possible insurance surcharges), it's gotten out of hand. I'm all for the enforcement of obvious violations, a person may not know they are going a little fast (especially if everyone else is), but a rolling stop or talking on the cell phone, etc. is knowingly violating (here in California), and you see that all the time. I imagine in time, nearly every light will have the camera, and they will have "speed cameras" (like Arizona) as well. Most of us try to stay within the law, and eventually get a ticket for some minor infraction that we're not necissarily realizing were "violating" (usually a radar ticket for 10-12 over). All I sak is that more attention be paid to the obvious violators and the really excessive speeders (someone going 25 over knows they're speeding), and keep up the good work on DUI checkpoints! Jerry, I'm all for ticketing the "California roll" at any stop sign, at any time of the day or night, "stop" means stop. (check any DMV rule book) you once "admonished" me for not knowing the meaning of "Palazzo", but I do know the meaning of "stop".

Will they send out to patrol cars also? Before & after the shift change at my local police station is a dangerous place to be. Talk about red light running and non-yielding to traffic! Wow! I have parked and gone in to voice my concern but they actually laugh. Disrespectful.

When did we become indentured servants to OUR government? They use fear to pass laws that make us pay MORE of our hard earned money. They want us to believe that if we don't have cameras that we will all die from accidents. Accidents happen, we can't legislate that fact away. Our government is no longer working for us. We are working for the government. NLV Police, you work for me. I say NO to cameras. If you don't want to get out of your patrol car and write a ticket, then get another job.

Jerry, maybe it was another Jerry, sorry for the mistake. I agree they should be patroling, I'd like to see them stake out places that get a lot of graffiti and catch the little hoodlums.....but I guess "catching" some scofflaw going 10 over on their way to work, with a radar gun, is more "cost effective". They can make 200-300 on each ticket. I also think maybe any speed less that 15 mph over should be a simple $5 per mph over, (with no points or need for "traffic school") except in school zones, etc. where I have no problem with stringent enforcement. Make it more cost effective to go after the major violators (there's plenty) and not so devastating to one who might lose several days pay because they were "a little over" and may not even realize they were (until the red light is in their mirror).In California if you "contest" the ticket, it's about a 6 month wait for a court date. Personally, I think everyone should ask for a court trial and back the system up even more.Trust me Jerry, we're on the same page. See you out on the road!I'm very pro law enforcement, but the cost of traffic enforcement to the public for minor violations is exhorbitant, and going higher (to balance the budget).Meanwhile, I'll just do my very best to not go over the limit, and the people behind me can go right ahead and be upset about me going 40 in a 40 zone. (maybe they'll nab them for tailgating!).

One more thing, there was a similar article in the Bakersfield Californian (our local paper) today, www.bakersfield.com and it mentioned that Bakersfield was one of 2 "camera" cities in the study that traffic deaths were actually up in the study (the other being Raliegh N.C.). A local drunk fireman (in his personal vehicle) was just convicted for running a red light (while DUI)and killing a lady. This drunk would have run the light, camera or not (it was not at a camera intersection). They hafe also increased rear-end type accidents due to "panic" stops of people who fear getting a ticket on a yellow, and getting hit from behind..

Aside from dreams of revenue, here's two reasons why politicians OK the cameras:

1. They think we like the cameras!In October, a blog exposed Astroturf Lobbying in the red light cam Industry. (To read it, Google Rynski and Astroturf.) Astroturf Lobbying is when a PR firm manufactures a fake grassroots movement via comments posted on news articles like this one. The politicians read newspapers and the web, just like anyone else. They see the pro-camera comments, assume they represent genuine public support, and so they vote to install cameras.

2. Politicians - and their extended family - are immune to the tickets.A newspaper revealed that in California 1.5 million privately-owned cars have plate numbers protected from easy look up, effectively invisible to agencies trying to process red light camera violations. The "protected" list includes local politicians, bureaucrats, retired cops, other govt. employees, and their families and ADULT children! Unbelievable? Read Cal. Veh. Code 1808.4. How many are on the list in Nevada?

Red light cameras were never designed or invented for safety,...they were always about the MONEY. They increase rear end collisions, and raid your wallet. Dig up the extensive articles by the Chicago Tribune concerning these things and how they have been sold by only two companies with questionable ties to local governments,...and all powered by propoganda. In some cities they have been caught shortening the federal timing of the yellow in hopes of grabbin some fast bucks.

If the cops are pushing for these things its because some guy named Slick showed them a pie chart full of $$$$$ as the main attraction. They should be illegal everywhere!

The article states:"Traffic fatalities in 14 cities with red-light cameras fell by 35 percent between the five-year periods 1992 to 1996 and 2004 to 2008, according to the survey. Although the rate also dropped in the 48 cities without the cameras during that same time period, it only declined by 14 percent."

That leaves 38 cities with the cameras unaccounted for from a pool of 52! The decrease in the percentage of traffic fatalities would be much lower if all the cities with cameras were included in the calculation.

The study proves nothing.

The Sun should be ashamed of itself for publishing such misleading information.

Or skewed another way:The study included 99 cities with populations of more than 200,000. For convenience, let's say the "more than" would make it an even 100 cities. That would put the yearly population pool at twenty million. Twenty million for five years would make an even 100 million. However, the study actually used two five year periods. So that makes it look like out of a study with a population pool of 200 million 815 lives "might" have been saved.

Granted if it was your life, or the live of someone close to you, it would matter a great deal. However, overall the number of lives saved would be infinitesimal: 0.000004%.

If we are really serious, as opposed to being just serious, about saving lives, we would do more to prefect firearm deaths. There are apx 35,000 firearm related deaths per year. 5 years x 35,000 = 175,000. 10 years x 35,000 would present a population pool of 350,000 lives that could potentially be saved.++++

Besides red-light cameras are used in socialist countries. And as every real CONservative American knows, the more red-light cameras a country has the more socialist it is. According to Fox News, socialism is bad. If red light cameras aren't bad enough, socialist countries are even worse because they provide universal health care for their citizens!

The reason people run red lights is because THE LIGHTS ARE TIMED BADLY. Adjust the timing of the lights in North Las Vegas so you don't have to wait at EVERY single light, then people wouldn't get frustrated and run red lights.

Also, enforcing a minimum speed on roads too, would help traffic to flow better. You would have less red lights run, and less accidents.

Go South from Aliante/Simmons from Aliante Station to Vegas Dr. You will wait at all/almost all lights. At any given time of the day, even night. They are timed bad, and force people to speed just to catch lights. It takes 40 minutes to drive that run which should only take 20 at the speed limit with all green lights.

Red light cameras are just another way for the police and government to raise revenue. Washington DC cought adjusting the time of the signal lighs to get more tickets. Houston scraps cameras after outrage by voters and drivers and surveys show more rear end accidents at intersections with cameras. Stop the big brother nonscense! You want more money for your city than raise the gaming tax from 6 3/4% to what the sales tax is 8.1% and leave us alone!

@Bakersfield Joe:You said:"I agree they should be patroling, I'd like to see them stake out places that get a lot of graffiti and catch the little hoodlums.....but I guess "catching" some scofflaw going 10 over on their way to work, with a radar gun, is more "cost effective". They can make 200-300 on each ticket."

People on the way to work have a means to pay. Tagger Hoodlums, on the other hand, probably don't. A bird in the hand...

For those of you who are bashing cops left and right here, I dare you spend a day in their shoes. Go on a ride along, Friday or Saturday night, swing/grave shifts, then you may have more respect for the profession.

As far as the Cameras are concerned, I am totally for them. Not only would this curb a major problem in this city but it would be a beautiful generator of extra funds for the cities and county. If you're worried about paying one of these tickets, I'm sure there's some ambulance chaser out there whose willing to bring it down to a parking citation. (another thing I'd like to see repealed)

These cameras are all about generating revenue. Anyone that disputes this is completely ignorant. The reason so many people in this town speed up upon seeing a yellow light is because there are far too many traffic lights in this town to begin with and they are all timed wrong. You don't need traffic lights at almost every intersection, only major ones. There are too many where a major street intersects with a minor one and these are totally unnecessary.

Collusion between the private entity doing the study & the dept. that initiates it.The public treasury is being plundered with money for studies, DUI Checkpoints,etc. There is such a thing as restraint if you don't know how actions will effect the overall health of the system.Guess what? The other Republican Governors are following the same plan.The Pentagon hasn't cut their budget even with the lower income levels. These cuts are actually revenue they are identifying in order to keep up the levels of war funding.Nevada's share of war funding? $10.2 Billion. Total defense spending for 2011? $1.6 billion.

An expectation of privacy is not at issue. It really has to do with due process. It is a misdemeanor, an officer needs to be able to identify the person driving. That's who needs to get the ticket. I believe it's more about money than safety. Any old timers will remember the days when NLV would ticket for revenue and then Judge Davis would throw a bunch of them out.

I believe there is a case making it's way to the SCOTUS regarding red light cameras. Let's at least wait until it's decided.

If statistics were governing their decisions then there would be no DUI checkpoints because statistically more drunks are caught with officers patrolling than at a static point. It's more about perception.

This is ONLY about money. Safety is the logical excuse THEY use to try to get it passed. Just like THEY use "Clean Air" and "Pure Water" to get billions in bonds passed which are nothing more than hidden taxes. It's just another scam. If cops cared about "safety" why do they hide? It's a known fact that people will DEFINITELY slow down if they see a cop. But then there's no money. If THEY cared about road rage THEY would ticket all those snails who drive so slooow in the fast lane while talking on the cellphone or driving the relatives from Ohio on sightseeing trips, again, in the fast lane. Take Obamacare, if THEY were so concerned with peoples health, why don't THEY ban cigarettes? Simple answer, it's always about the money. Take away one of a man's freedoms and he will certainly rebel. That will cost him some money. That's THEIR plan, to get you to pay for THEIR very expensive pink and yellow and green and blue pieces of paper. That's ALL government creates, paper, that THEY make you "pay for" and call it a "fine". Bottom line? We have the MOST corrupt government in the world.

It is a known fact that the companies that provide the cameras get a cut of the revenue they generate.

It is ALSO a known fact that the same companies HAVE BEEN CAUGHT manipulating the light cycles so as to INCREASE their share of the revenue. More violations = More dollars. Innocent drivers being charged with running a red light that was unexpectedly changed.

Hey Las Vegas! I did a painful sign-up process here just to let you know that you need to be VERY CAREFUL who you make a deal with if you go forward with this. In Houston the mayor made a deal with American Traffic Solutions that could not be broken. Even after a referendum was voted on to take them back down, we're stuck with them. So, make sure you are not locked into a deal with ATS or anyone else if you decide to abandon this method of city revenue.